Something remarkable happened Monday: the Corporate Media finally got sick of Bush's endless lies about Iraq, and started to tell the truth.

The immediate cause was a front-page New York Times story about the "White House Memo," a 5-page report on the White House meeting between George Bush and Tony Blair on January 31, 2003 - seven weeks before the invasion of Iraq.

Prosecutor That Could Lead To Impeachment by Francis T. Mandanici Wednesday, 29 June 2005

Some have observed that the Bush Administration's claims that Iraqhad weapons of mass destruction were not just good faith mistakesbut actual lies. Some have even recently compared President Bush'sfalse claims about Iraq to the Watergate scandal that led toPresident Nixon's resignation. See Truth And Deceit by Bob Herbertand Don't Follow the Money by Frank Rich in The New York Times, June2, 12, 2005. Some, such as the organizations AfterDowningStreet andDemocracyRising.US, have even called for the initiation ofimpeachment proceedings based in part on the Downing Street Memothat revealed that according to a British intelligence official theBush Administration prior to the war against Iraq fixed theintelligence and facts to justify the war.[1]

A lot of people want to believe that the current war on Iraq is some kind of

aberration - a radical departure from the previous baseline of USforeign policy.

That's a comforting illusion.

Yes, the current administration in Washingtonis notable for the extreme mendacity

and calculated idiocy of its claims. But - decade after decade - the propaganda fuel

for one US war after another has flowed from a standard set of lies.

_________________________________________________________

George W. Bush is a Goddamn Liar If George W. Bush tells us that we invaded Iraq because Saddam did notlet the inspectors in, and we all know that the inspectors were indeedlet in, then how does anyone not realize we are being lied to aboutthe reason for going to war? It is SO OBVIOUS!_________________________________________________________

Scott RitterSaturday May 21, 2005The GuardianIn the recent parliamentary elections, the British people, given thechoice between standing for the rule of law or embracing partisanpolitics, chose the latter, voting with their pocketbooks, eventhough it meant re-electing a man who led Britain into an illegalwar of aggression, based on lies and misrepresentation of fact.

_____________________________________________________________

British Memo Reopens War Claim By Stephen J. Hedges and Mark Silva The Chicago Tribune Tuesday 17 May 2005Leaked briefing says US intelligence facts `fixed' around policy. Washington - A British official's report that the Bushadministration appeared intent on invading Iraq long before itacknowledged as much or sought Congress' approval--and thatit "fixed" intelligence to fit its intention--has caused a stir inBritain. But the potentially explosive revelation has proven to besomething of a dud in the United States. The White House has deniedthe premise of the memo, the American media have reacted slowly toit and the public generally seems indifferent to the issue orunwilling to rehash the bitter prewar debate over the reasons forthe war.___________________________________________________________

If you ask anyone who the most powerful person is inIraq, you may get varied answers: the stooge primeminister; the stooge president; or even Sistani. Theyare all wrong. The most powerful person is AhmedChalabi. That is not a typo.

It has been rumored that the brief, antiseptic legal opinion-citing that alegal basis for the Iraq war did exist-that British Prime Minister TonyBlair received from his attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, did not actuallyreflect the advice of the top British government lawyer. That turns out tobe true.__________________________________________________________

In the few weeks before its fall, Iraq's Ba'athist regime made a series of increasingly desperate peace offers to Washington, promising to hold elections and even to allow US troops to search for banned weapons. But the advances were all rejected by the Bush administration, according to intermediaries involved in the talks.

Below is a piece I wrote for the latest issue of The Nation. It seems that Pat Roberts, the Republican chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, wants to break the promise he made last year to investigate whether the Bush administration misrepresented the prewar intelligence on WMDs. What a surprise.